The difference between DRM and anti-cheat is just semantics. The license says "do not cheat" and the software enforces that license = DRM. But lots of players really don't care about "fair". Any game with a large mod community, mostly single player games like KSP or minecraft, generally stays far away from any form of DRM. The entire concept of "cheating" doesn't really exist in such games.

> Any game with a large mod community, mostly single player games like KSP or minecraft, generally stays far away from any form of DRM.

Many major first person shooters stand as counterpoints to your claim. Most Valve games for example are incredibly mod friendly, at the same time Steam was a pioneer in online DRM and Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) is generally reasonably effective.

Even games where the anti-cheat isn't as mod-friendly as Valve's often offer modes where the game can be launched with anti-cheat disabled but you lose access to public matchmaking and ranked play, only being able to play on private games and/or servers that have turned off anti-cheat themselves. The PC port of Halo does this well.

> The entire concept of "cheating" doesn't really exist in such games.

For the record Minecraft does in fact have anti-cheat, but it's mostly just about illegal movements versus anything else, flight without creative privileges in particular. Anything beyond that is up to the server operator and their chosen plugins. Cheating is still definitely a thing, at least when playing survival with other people, but what defines cheating is up to each group to decide for themselves.

---

DRM and anti-cheat do have the same big picture goal in the end, prevent the user from tampering with the application, but I do agree with the above poster that it is very different ethically. We all want our ranked play to be free of cheaters.

> The difference between DRM and anti-cheat is just semantics

Not really - DRM = anti-copying/anti-piracy, anti-cheat is self-explanatory. Both sometimes employ similar strategies (anti-tampering/poking around with executables, linked libraries or memory), but they are not the same thing

That's one view, but I'd argue that they are both variations on the general problem of "how to run software on a computer without letting the owner of that computer actually control the software". When it's against piracy, the goal is to make sure that the software can refuse to run if it's not correctly licensed or to make sure that the user can't send its output to a recording, and when it's against cheating the goal is to make sure that the user can't modify or view the game state except through the standard game UI, but both revolve around denying the user power over software executing on their hardware.

The big difference is that anti-cheat usually applies on company property, i.e. on their servers. The most common punishment for tripping anticheat is a ban from online services of some kind.

That's true but I was referring to games that continue to add new features and improvements to their Windows client, but leave the Linux client on an old version, which is a separate issue. With online games this sometimes even means that Linux users will no longer be able to play with Windows users https://www.lustvollerjonas.com/ .

On the other hand Wine probably has better backwards compatibility with old Windows games that Windows does in many cases.